If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The precedent of states going against what the Fed says is not unheard of. Fed laws says that marijuana is a controlled substance and it is illegal to possess or use it, yet we just had the population of Colorado and Washington vote to pass laws that make it legal to possess and use in your home for recreational purposes.

Yes. But in reality, it's still an illegal narcotic because it's a class 1 (highest or "worst" level) narcotic federally. The fact that people can buy and smoke marijuana in those two states relies completely on two things:
1: Local law enforcement respecting state law more than federal.
2: The feds not going after marijuana users in those two states.

Obama has been fairly clear about his position on this issue. Any state that votes to legalize marijuana will not have the feds going after marijuana users, but officially, that means nothing. He could change his mind tomorrow. The next guy could go on a rampage in any state that does legalize marijuana.

Despite the fact that it's legal in Washington and Colorado, it's still illegal in the United States including Washington and Colorado. The states can make any laws they want, it doesn't trump federal law. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

Doesn't change the fact that the citizens voted in favor of something that the Fed says is illegal.

1: Local law enforcement respecting state law more than federal.

State law enforcement only works based on state law. State police can not file Federal charges, Federal indictments or prosecute based on Federal law.

2: The feds not going after marijuana users in those two states.

The Fed is dependent on information gathered by state law enforcement, so they will be limited based on that alone.

Last edited by duane1969; 03-27-2013 at 01:51 PM.

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

Doesn't change the fact that the citizens voted in favor of something that the Fed says is illegal.

And that doesn't change the fact that, under your system of law, federal law trumps state law. California legalized medicinal marijuana and police kept arresting people in possession, just not every cop and not every user with a licence that's valid in California, but not the US.

Originally Posted by duane1969

State law enforcement only works based on state law. State police can not file Federal charges, Federal indictments or prosecute based on Federal law.

You're absolutely right. Jusrisdiction is a HUGE part of why people aren't getting arrested. The feds have said they won't bother in those states. Again, a new President could change that. The current President could change his mind. If that happens, federal law enforcement still has every right to go in and arrest people breaking federal law. Right now federal law says marijuana is illegal. The legalization still depends entirely on the attitude of the current administration at any given time because at any given time they can come in and arrest people on federal charges, even if they're not breaking state law.

Originally Posted by duane1969

The Fed is dependent on information gathered by state law enforcement, so they will be limited based on that alone.

Yes they will, unless the system of gathering information changes. The feds can gather their own information and can arrest users in those states based on that information. Just because they currently don't doesn't mean it isn't possible under law. Maybe it's such a large undertaking that it will never realistically happen, but your system allows for it and because of that it's obvious that marijuana is still illegal in those states because it's illegal in all states, federally speaking.

Federal trumps state. Laws that are dependant on certain people looking the other way aren't laws, they're understandings.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

I don't disagree that Fed law trumps state law, but you questioned if states would vote to go against a Fed law or ruling. Colorado and Washington are a clear example that they will.

I should ad that you questioned if it is a states right to go against the Constitution, gay marriage will not be Constitutional law or a Constitutional right. It would be a SC decision that can be challenged and most likely will be challenged for many, many years to come. You mentioned Roe v. Wade, that was 40 years ago and we still have challenges to it all the time. The SC deciding that gay marriage is legal will not change much in my opinion.

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

I don't disagree that Fed law trumps state law, but you questioned if states would vote to go against a Fed law or ruling. Colorado and Washington are a clear example that they will.

No, I asked if they have the right to go against the constitution, not federal law. If SCOTUS finds that denying gay marriage is unconstitutional, how can you argue that individual states can deny gay marriage? That's unconstitutional, if SCOTUS decides so. That's what they do. They can change their minds later and hear new arguments, but as long as a ruling is standing, it's constitutional. Government, state or federal, can dream up and pass any insane laws they want. SCOTUS gets to decide if those laws are constitutional or "legal".
I'll also add that there's nothing in your constitution about drug legislation, so this is all moot.

Originally Posted by duane1969

I should ad that you questioned if it is a states right to go against the Constitution, gay marriage will not be Constitutional law or a Constitutional right. It would be a SC decision that can be challenged and most likely will be challenged for many, many years to come. You mentioned Roe v. Wade, that was 40 years ago and we still have challenges to it all the time. The SC deciding that gay marriage is legal will not change much in my opinion.

Yes, and things can change. As it stands now, abortion is constitutional and, therefor, legal. Does that mean it's actually constitutional? No idea, but it does mean no one has come up with an argument calling abortion bans constitutional.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

Let's say DOMA is struck down by the SCOTUS (which most legal experts say it will).....basically, what SCOTUS will be saying is that the federal government can NOT discriminate on gay marriage, but at the same time, the states can?

So, gay marriage will be legal with full rights....FOR SOME, not for all.

Hard line conservative states like....oh I don't know the whole darn SOUTH....will continue to discriminate hiding under the guise of "traditional marriage" and religion.

I just hope that this is the first step...

The next step will be to make marriage a CONSTITUTIONAL issue.

Make an amendment to the U.S constitution that says that marriage is a RIGHT granted to all Americans regardless of gender.